By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel discusses Berkshire Hathaway's Q1 moves under Greg Abel, with a net takeaway that these shifts, particularly the exit from Visa and Mastercard and increased stakes in Alphabet and Delta, signal a strategic shift towards higher-beta holdings. However, the panelists remain neutral to bearish, citing risks such as regulatory headwinds, cyclicality, and concentration of volatility.
Risk: Concentration of volatility and increased exposure to credit-cycle sensitivity
Opportunity: Potential portfolio optimization and belief in American Express' moat
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The company exited several smaller, distracting positions.
Berkshire’s new management team appears a little more willing to take risks on seemingly undervalued tickers.
While Buffett was never a big fan of tech stocks, Abel and his lieutenants are clearly far more comfortable with (some of) them.
Last quarter was a busy one for Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRKA) (NYSE: BRKB)... busier than most. New CEO Greg Abel made a bunch of changes that predecessor Warren Buffett didn't seem so interested in making. Here's a rundown of the biggest three made in the first quarter.
Buffett was never wholeheartedly committed to it in the sense that Berkshire never held a major stake in the company. But, after first establishing a position in 2011, Abel opted to sell the entirety of the conglomerate's 8.3-million-share stake in credit card middleman Visa (NYSE: V) last quarter. Berkshire also dumped all of its holdings in Mastercard (NYSE: MA) during the first quarter of the year.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Neither was a particularly big position for the company. Indeed, Mastercard and Visa each only accounted for about 1% of Berkshire's entire portfolio of stocks. Still, it's a message about how Abel feels about certain aspects of the credit card business right now.
Although the company dumped Visa and Mastercard, Berkshire's position in American Express (NYSE: AXP) remained untouched in Q1. It's now the conglomerate's second-biggest holding, worth a whopping $47 billion.
Buffett overwhelmingly gave up on airlines in early 2020, selling all of $4 billion worth of positions in several of the major names in the business after the COVID-19 pandemic posed a threat that could have lasted a while. That threat eventually abated, of course, but Berkshire never stepped back in -- a seemingly smart decision given airlines' uncertain performances in the meantime (and for the foreseeable future).
Abel seems willing to take risks that Buffett wasn't, however. Last quarter, Berkshire scooped up 39.8 million then-beaten-down shares of Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL), now worth $2.8 billion.
That's still not a huge position -- it's only about 1% of the company's total portfolio value. It's not been a bad bet so far, though. The stock's up since the March pullback prompted by the military conflict in the Middle East. Berkshire could certainly add to this position in the future, as is often the case.
Finally, although Warren Buffett was never a big fan of technology stocks (he said he didn't understand them well enough), Abel and his lieutenants aren't afraid. Berkshire was already sitting on a small position in Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) as of late last year. During Q1 2026, Berkshire tripled its stake in the company's A shares to 54.2 billion. That stake is now worth $23 billion, making it Berkshire's seventh-biggest holding. Berkshire also scooped up 3.6 million C shares of Google's parent company, worth roughly $1 billion.
It's not exactly worth detailing, since most of these positions were pointlessly small. But Berkshire Hathaway also completely exited 16 positions that served little to no meaningful purpose and/or had little net effect on the stock portfolio's value. Some of these exits include recently purchased Pool Corp, UnitedHealth, and Amazon. Abel may simply be trying to clean out some of the potentially distracting holdings so his management team can focus on the trades that truly matter.
Before you buy stock in Berkshire Hathaway, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Berkshire Hathaway wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $477,813! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,320,088!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 208% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 24, 2026. *
American Express is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. James Brumley has positions in Alphabet. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, American Express, Berkshire Hathaway, Mastercard, and Visa. The Motley Fool recommends Delta Air Lines, Pool, and UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The new bets add volatility and sector-specific risks without materially altering Berkshire's overall risk profile or return drivers."
Berkshire's Q1 moves under Abel—full exits from Visa and Mastercard, a $2.8B Delta stake, and tripling Alphabet to roughly $24B—mark a clear shift toward higher-beta holdings. Yet these remain under 2% of the equity book each, while the untouched $47B American Express position and 16 minor liquidations change little at scale. The article downplays Alphabet's mounting antitrust exposure and Delta's sensitivity to fuel spikes plus Middle East disruptions that triggered the March dip. Buffett's 2020 airline exit avoided years of losses; Abel's willingness to re-enter lacks similar margin-of-safety evidence.
Alphabet's AI cash flows and Delta's capacity discipline could compound faster than legacy holdings if regulatory risks stay contained, validating Abel's lighter touch versus Buffett's tech aversion.
"The portfolio rebalance reflects management style change, not necessarily alpha—and timing risk is material if Abel is buying strength in crowded trades."
Abel's portfolio moves signal a genuine strategic shift, but the article conflates 'willingness to buy' with 'skill at timing.' Tripling Alphabet to $23B is meaningful; Delta at $2.8B is noise dressed as narrative. The real tell: dumping V/MA while holding $47B AXP suggests Abel sees payment-rail commoditization risk but still believes in the premium merchant acquirer. Exiting 16 small positions is housekeeping, not strategy. The risk nobody mentions: if Abel is rotating INTO airlines and mega-cap tech precisely when both are richly valued post-rally, this could be peak-confidence buying, not contrarian positioning.
Abel might simply be deploying cash at attractive entry points (Delta post-geopolitical dip, Alphabet pre-AI acceleration) rather than signaling a reckless pivot. Buffett's passivity could reflect capital constraints or deliberate optionality, not superior judgment.
"The portfolio changes attributed to Greg Abel are likely continuations of existing autonomous management by Berkshire's investment deputies rather than a radical shift in corporate strategy."
This article presents a narrative of 'Abel-led' strategic shifts that deserves heavy skepticism. Attributing these trades to Greg Abel suggests a fundamental change in Berkshire’s capital allocation philosophy, yet it ignores the reality that Todd Combs and Ted Weschler have managed significant portions of the equity portfolio for years. The move into Alphabet and the exit from payments giants like Visa and Mastercard may simply reflect the portfolio managers' evolving views on valuation and regulatory moats rather than a top-down mandate from a new CEO. By framing this as a 'new management' pivot, the article obscures the fact that Berkshire’s massive cash pile remains the primary constraint, not a sudden newfound love for tech.
The strongest counter-argument is that Berkshire’s culture is so deeply rooted in the Oracle of Omaha that any deviation, no matter how small, represents a meaningful signal of institutional transition that the market must price in.
"Abel is tilting Berkshire toward higher-beta bets like Alphabet and Delta, signaling a structural shift in allocation that could pay off if tech and travel stay firm, but risks Berkshire abandoning its traditional moat-driven discipline."
Abel's Q1 moves look like a recalibration, not a reset. Berkshire dumped Visa and Mastercard--small, but symbolic of a pivot away from payments moats--and expanded bets in Alphabet and Delta. The Alphabet stake is the standout: Berkshire's A-shares exposure to GOOG/GOOGL now sits around 54.2 billion, making tech Berkshire's seventh-largest holding and signaling a willingness to embrace growth names. Delta adds airline cyclicality, a departure from Buffett-era conservatism. Exiting other names suggests pruning distractions. Risks: Alphabet faces regulatory and ad-market headwinds, while Delta's travel exposure can magnify losses in a downturn; the combination tests Berkshire's traditional capital-allocation discipline.
The strongest counter: Berkshire has a lot of cash and a history of waiting for clear mispricings; Alphabet and Delta may be rational gambles, but they could underperform if growth slows or travel demand falters, challenging Berkshire's discipline.
"Abel-level approval is required for moves this large, creating concentrated regulatory and cyclical risks across new holdings."
Gemini understates Abel's oversight: tripling Alphabet to $24B and fully exiting Visa/Mastercard exceed the scale Combs or Weschler typically execute without CEO input. This links directly to Claude's payment-rail thesis—shedding two networks while retaining $47B American Express creates lopsided exposure to the same regulatory and disruption risks now hitting Delta via fuel and geopolitics. The cash pile may still dominate, but these moves concentrate volatility rather than diversify it.
"V/MA exit + AXP hold signals selective moat conviction, not blind concentration."
Grok's concentration-risk argument is sharp, but misses the offsetting factor: AXP's $47B stake already embeds payment-rail exposure. Exiting V/MA doesn't *add* volatility—it *rebalances* away from commoditized networks toward a premium acquirer. The real question Grok sidesteps: does Abel believe AXP's moat survives better than V/MA's in a fintech-disrupted world? If yes, this is portfolio optimization, not reckless concentration.
"Exiting Visa and Mastercard in favor of American Express increases Berkshire's exposure to credit-cycle volatility rather than simply optimizing payment-rail moats."
Claude, your 'portfolio optimization' thesis ignores the regulatory reality: AXP is a bank and a lender, whereas V and MA are pure-play networks. By exiting the networks, Berkshire isn't just rebalancing; it's doubling down on credit-cycle sensitivity. If we hit a recession, AXP’s exposure to consumer defaults will hurt far more than the fee-compression risks facing V or MA. This isn't just 'premium' vs 'commodity'; it's a massive shift in Berkshire's risk profile regarding consumer leverage.
"Exiting V/MA but preserving a large AXP stake swaps a diversified payment-network moat for greater credit-cycle risk; in a downturn Berkshire's new mix could worsen downside versus prior."
Gemini's credit-risk concern is valid, but it understates the net effect: exiting V/MA and keeping a huge AXP stake effectively swaps a diversified payment-network moat for greater credit-cycle sensitivity. AXP is still a lender and issuer; in a downturn, charge-offs rise even if fees compress elsewhere. If Abel believes AXP’s moat withstands fintech disruption, the watchword should be 'comfort in credit risk'—which the article rarely mentions.
The panel discusses Berkshire Hathaway's Q1 moves under Greg Abel, with a net takeaway that these shifts, particularly the exit from Visa and Mastercard and increased stakes in Alphabet and Delta, signal a strategic shift towards higher-beta holdings. However, the panelists remain neutral to bearish, citing risks such as regulatory headwinds, cyclicality, and concentration of volatility.
Potential portfolio optimization and belief in American Express' moat
Concentration of volatility and increased exposure to credit-cycle sensitivity